Where now in education?

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 34021, 9 December 1975, Page 25

Where now in education?

( By

JOHN BROWN)

"here to now and ’nth whom? This is the question facing education as administrators recover from the shock defeat of the Minister of Education (Mr Amos) and the Labour Government. Mr Amos moulded a controversial Ministry. His most vociferous critics saw him as a pie-m-the-sky idealist: ms ardent supporters, and there were many, saw him as the leader of a new deal for education in New Zealand. As Labour Party spokesman on education' for nine years before 1972, he pursued new ideas like a restless terrier. He won the confidence of all sections of education in those vears and much was expected of him. Mr Amos inherited a Ministry in 1972 that had been allowed to run down. The momentum and public attention it had gathered under the National Party's most notable Minister of Education. Mr Briar. Taiboys, had ended and Mr Laurie Pickering, who acted as “caretaker’ Minister of Education until November, 1972, was not in the position to make major changes. The Department of Education in 1972 was on the brink of major changes. It had lost or was just about to lose some of its old retainers and everyone in it saw Mr Amos as education’s ’’new saviour.’’ When he came to power, Mr Amos left no doubt that he was the new broom that would sweep everything clean He believed he had the mandate to do this because of outspoken support given to him during his years as Opposition spokesman.

But after only a few months in office. Mr Amos made his first major tactical error with his department? On the day before the 1973: Budget he called all the staff, of the head office of the De-i partment of Education together to give them a “state! of the nation" address. His motive was to givei clear information on what he expected of his depart-; ment and this included everyone from junior typists to the most senior staff. Hisi motives were laudable, but) misunderstood by a department which then regarded itself as impregnable. Never one to quit a diffi-i cult situation, Mr Amos took' heart from the fact that) many of the Department of) Education’s “old brigade"' were prepared to change,) given evidence that the country did want a new deal! in education.

Suddenly the Department recognised its potential new importance in the Labour Governments scheme, as “Ministerial s" (directives from the Minister of Education s office) began to flow with increasing rapidity from Parliament Building's across the road to the head office of the department. New departmental staff were appointed. The Minister had his eyes and ears on the education scene and Mr Amos set his Ministry on a path, which even some of his strongest critics admit, has led to remarkable progress in education. That Mr Amos was able to achieve so much in education has amazed his critics w-ho saw him as a “nice

bloke” but inconsistent andi too easy givbn to making! promises which often failed to materialise. Well liked In the House of Representatives he was well liked by! Labour Party and National! Party members alike. Much of this was again because hei had been the only long-term; spokesman on education. In Cabinet committees hei shed his calm, smiling rnanner and was not adverse to; brow-beating his colleagues! to achieve extra finance for his portfolio. This went largely unrecognised outside these committees, and because of his reluctance to lobby on his own behalf the image of a sometimes bewildered Minister persisted. As his Ministry proceeded,j Mr Amos realised that he) held a trump card in his fer-i vent desire for change that! most senior officers of the) Department of Education! shared. Accused often of isolation' and naivety in the face of < public opinion on education ; the department threw itself behind the Labour Party’s Educational Development Conference as an example of its willingness to “go public.” i The conference opened many of the department’s dusty cupboards and ensured Mr .Amos of loyalty from many senior officers of the department.

It is now unlikely that the Department of Education will ever again allow itself to wilt behind the bureaucratic anonymity of its ageing wooden building. Now that the department! has learnt that it can flex: its muscles, now that it knows it has the responsibility to inform all New Zealanders about what it is) doing it will fight hard to I retain its new freedom.

Not reticent If the department had ibeen reticent before 1972 in I pursuing new policies in the | open, it is not now, and ieven though Mr Amos may 'have been the man in the right place at the right time his Ministry may appear in | the history books as the) most innovative since the) • first Labour Government. For the first time in rei cent history the country has a blueprint for educational change — the report of the Educational Development i Conference — and this will Ibe something the new Govjemment cannot ignore. The main achievements of the Amos Ministry did not please everyone but they did ensure that education was a matter of intense public con- ! cern.

Technical education surged) forward until it was safely! assured of a large share of I the s6oom spent on education in the current year. Before 1972 Mr Amos had openly courted the country’s tertiary students. As Minister he found that no easy honeymoon was likely to take place with these students who fought vigorously with him about the con-' troversia! standard tertiary The students now concede that they will be better off and more equally provided for under this new scheme. They won against strong opposition the right to be consulted on these issues. Under the new scheme Mr Amos in one step upgraded

the status and financial posi-i Ition of technical institute, students which won him a ■ new loyalty from the country's 13 technical institutes. The unexpected success of! the country’s first community college at Otatara in Hawke’s Bay, and the) speedy progress on plans for similar tertiary colleges in! Tauranga, Wanganui. Ro-' torua, Whangarei and Ti-| maru, plus the appointment of four special officers at the Department of Education to handle these new’ developments made their future seem assured. Now this is no longer clear. In Christchurch the country’s first State-run alternative school was opened by Mr Amos. Its future is safe for another year but no! assurance has been given by the National Party as to further developments. The same uncertainty applies to the growth of community schools such as Hagley High School, Ashburton College, and a number of Auckland; schools specialising in sec-I ond-chance education for adults. The two great successes of Mr Amos’ Ministry are the growth of continuing education and the issue of integration of private shcools with the State. Continuing education, once fragmented and available to few people, is now a fact of educational life. It has been placed under the umbrella of the Department of Education, and recognition of its importance is gauged by the; fact that the National Party) has promised to develop it! further.

Integration The Private Schools Conditional Integration Act has been hailed by most concerned groups as a historic piece of legislation. It was praised last week by the Most Rev. R. J. Delargey, the Roman Catholic Metropolitan of New Zealand, and a statement on the Act is expected from the country’s Roman Catholic bishops soon. What the Roman Catholic Church and the country’s two major teacher organisations, the Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers’ Association fear is that the present economic situation may cause delavs in implementing the Act. This would cost an estimated S2sm. The Educational Institute, the P.P.T.A. and the Roman Catholic Education Council are united in their belief that the Act marks a new stage of co-operation in New Zealand education and much of the credit for this is given to the former directorgeneral of education, Mr A. N. V. Dobbs and Mr Amos. It is a year today since the final State aid conference when the integration proposals first got approval from all the parties involved. The Roman Catholic Education Council is adamant that nothing must be done to destroy the good will and rapport established by this conference and the new Act. If the proposals of the new Act were not put into force soon many Roman Catholic schools will be placed under major economic stress in spite of bridging finance promised by both the Labour and National parties. Whoever is named Minister of Education in the new Government will face a diffi-

cult task. With the exception of Mr Taiboys, no likely candidate in the National Party is adequately equipped, as Mr Amos was in 1972, to take over the education portfolio. One thing certain is that the Department of Education is not looking forward to a new Minister. Another cogent issue is the political power of the two State teacher organisations. These two groups, representing 32.000 teachers, proved in 1970 and this year that they would not tolerate any downgrading of education. The new Minister of Education will get no better treatment than that allotted to Mr Taiboys or Mr Amos if he forgets this.